AltaLink Management Ltd. and ATCO Electric Ltd.

Transcription

1 Decision AltaLink Management Ltd. and ATCO Electric Ltd. Hanna Region Transmission Development May 8, 2012

2 The Alberta Utilities Commission Decision : Hanna Region Transmission Development Applications No. No , No , No , No , No , No , No , No , No and No Proceeding ID No. 979 May 8, 2012 Published by The Alberta Utilities Commission Fifth Avenue Place, Fourth Floor, 425 First Street S.W. Calgary, Alberta T2P 3L8 Telephone: Fax: Website:

3 Contents 1 Introduction Background The process for new transmission development in Alberta Hanna region transmission development needs identification document approvals Currant Lake and Armitage needs identification document approvals Overview of the ten facility applications Hansman Lake to Pemukan: AltaLink portion Hansman Lake to Pemukan: ATCO portion Pemukan to Lanfine Currant Lake Lanfine to Oakland Oyen area interconnection Lanfine to Armitage Oakland to Coyote Lake Oakland to Anderson Coyote Lake to Michichi Creek Interventions Notice of hearing Hearing The public interest Decision overview Application No filed by AltaLink (AltaLink portion of the Hansman Lake to Pemukan project) Preferred and alternate route selection for the AltaLink portion of the Hansman Lake to Pemukan line Routing considerations Views of AltaLink Views of the Hansman Lake Group Land use impacts Views of AltaLink Views of the Hansman Lake Group Environmental considerations Views of AltaLink Views of the Hansman Lake Group Schedule Views of AltaLink Views of the Hansman Lake Group Economic considerations Views of AltaLink Views of the Hansman Lake Group Social considerations Views of AltaLink AUC Decision (May 8, 2012) i

4 Views of the Hansman Lake Group Commission findings Decision on AltaLink portion of the Hansman Lake to Pemukan project Applications filed by ATCO Electric Ltd Application No (ATCO portion of Hansman Lake to Pemukan project) Preferred and alternate route selection for ATCO portion of Hansman Lake to Pemukan line Land use impacts Views of ATCO Views of interveners Environmental considerations Views of ATCO Views of interveners Economic considerations Views of ATCO Social considerations Views of ATCO Views of interveners Schedule Commission findings Application No (Pemukan to Lanfine project) and Application No (Currant Lake project) Preferred and alternate route selection for Pemukan to Lanfine line Preferred and alternate route selection for Currant Lake line Land use impacts Views of ATCO Views of interveners Environmental considerations Views of ATCO Views of interveners Economic considerations Views of ATCO Views of interveners Social considerations Views of ATCO Views of interveners Schedule Views of ATCO Views of interveners Commission findings Application No (Lanfine to Oakland project) Preferred and alternate route selection for Lanfine to Oakland line Land use impacts Views of ATCO Views of interveners Environmental considerations Views of ATCO Views of interveners ii AUC Decision (May 8, 2012)

5 6.3.4 Economic considerations Views of ATCO Views of interveners Social considerations Views of ATCO Views of interveners Schedule Commission findings Application No (Oyen area interconnection project) and Application No (Lanfine to Armitage project) Preferred route selection for the Oyen area interconnection project Preferred route selection for the Lanfine to Armitage line Land use impacts Environmental considerations Economic considerations Social considerations Schedule Commission findings Application No (Anderson to Oakland project) and Application No (Oakland to Coyote Lake project) Preferred and alternate route selection for Oakland to Coyote Lake line Land use impacts Environmental considerations Economic considerations Social considerations Schedule Commission findings Application No (Coyote Lake to Michichi Creek project) Preferred and alternate route selection for the Coyote Lake to Michichi Creek line Land use impacts Environmental considerations Economic considerations Social considerations Schedule Views of interveners Commission findings Decision on ATCO s applications AUC Decision (May 8, 2012) iii

6 Appendices Appendix A Overall map of proposed facilities for Hanna region project Appendix B Detailed descriptions of proposed facilities Appendix C Map of proposed routes for AltaLink portion of Hansman Lake to Pemukan line Appendix D Map of proposed routes for ATCO portion of Hansman Lake to Pemukan line Appendix E Map of proposed routes for Pemukan to Lanfine line Appendix F Map of proposed routes for Currant Lake line Appendix G Map of proposed routes for Lanfine to Oakland line Appendix H Map of proposed routes for Oyen area interconnection project Appendix I Map of proposed route for Lanfine to Armitage line Appendix J Map of proposed routes for Oakland to Coyote Lake line Appendix K Map of proposed route for Oakland to Anderson line Appendix L Map of proposed routes for Coyote Lake to Michichi Creek line Appendix M Proceeding participants Appendix N Oral hearing registered appearances Appendix O Map of approved route for AltaLink portion of Hansman Lake to Pemukan line Appendix P Map of approved route for ATCO portion of Hansman Lake to Pemukan line Appendix Q Map of approved route for Pemukan to Lanfine line Appendix R Map of approved route for Currant Lake line Appendix S Map of approved route for Lanfine to Oakland line Appendix T Map of approved route for Oakland to Coyote Lake line Appendix U Map of approved route for Coyote Lake to Michichi Creek line Appendix V Abbreviations AUC Decision (May 8, 2012) i

7 List of Figures Figure 1: Overall area map of Hanna region project...4 Figure 2: Proposed routes for AltaLink portion of Hansman Lake to Pemukan line Figure 3: Proposed routes for ATCO portion of Hansman Lake to Pemukan line Figure 4: Proposed routes for Pemukan to Lanfine line Figure 5: Proposed routes for Currant Lake line Figure 6: Proposed routes for Lanfine to Oakland line Figure 7: Proposed routes for Oyen area interconnection project Figure 8: Proposed route for Lanfine to Armitage line Figure 9: Proposed route for Anderson to Oakland line Figure 10: Proposed routes for Oakland to Coyote Lake line Figure 11: Proposed routes for Coyote Lake to Michichi Creek line AUC Decision (May 8, 2012) i

8

9 The Alberta Utilities Commission Calgary, Alberta AltaLink Management Ltd. and ATCO Electric Ltd. Decision Hanna Region Transmission Development Proceeding ID No Introduction 1. Between November 2010 and April 2011, ATCO Electric Ltd. (ATCO) filed nine facility applications with the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC or the Commission) seeking approval to construct and operate various transmission facilities as part of the Hanna region transmission development project. On December 6, 2010, AltaLink Management Ltd. (AltaLink) also filed a facility application in relation to the Hanna region transmission development project. 2. These ten applications, which will be referred to collectively as the facility applications, are related to facilities proposed to be located in the Hanna area. The need for the majority of the proposed facilities was approved by the Hanna region transmission development needs identification document 2 (NID). The need for the remaining facilities was considered and approved in a separate decision. 3 All ten facility applications were considered jointly by the Commission in AUC Proceeding ID No The facilities proposed by ATCO and AltaLink include approximately 300 kilometres of contiguous transmission line connecting the Provost area to the Oyen area and westward to the Drumheller area, and approximately 24 kilometres of transmission line to interconnect the new facilities with existing facilities in Sheerness, Oyen and Monitor area (collectively referred to as the Hanna region project). 4. A map showing an overview of the proposed facilities is attached in Appendix A. Complete descriptions of the facilities can be found in the subsequent sections of this decision and in Appendix B. 2 Background 2.1 The process for new transmission development in Alberta 5. Two approvals from the AUC are required to build new transmission capacity in Alberta, other than critical transmission infrastructure: an approval of the need for expansion or enhancement to the Alberta Interconnected Electric System pursuant to Section 34 of the ATCO Electric Ltd. Applications No , No , No , No , No , No , No , No and No , and AltaLink Management Ltd. Application No Application No : Hanna Region Transmission System Development Needs Identification Document, Alberta Electric Systems Operator, August 14, Decision : Alberta Electric System Operator Currant Lake 896S Substation, Armitage 949S Substation and 144-kV Transmission Line Interconnections Needs Identification Document Applications, Applications No and No , Proceeding ID No. 979, September 12, AUC Decision (May 8, 2012) 1

10 Electric Utilities Act, and a permit to construct and licence to operate a transmission facility pursuant to sections 14 and 15 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act. 6. The Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO), in its capacity as the independent system operator established under the Electric Utilities Act, is responsible for preparing a needs identification document and filing an application for approval of the NID with the AUC pursuant to Section 34 of the Electric Utilities Act. 7. Facility applications are prepared by a transmission facility owner assigned by the AESO. In this case, both ATCO and AltaLink prepared their respective facility applications based on their designated service territories. The transmission facility owner files the facility application with the AUC for consideration. The AUC may approve or deny the application, or approve it subject to any terms or conditions it prescribes. When considering an application for a transmission facility, the Commission must consider whether the proposed transmission facility is in the public interest having regard to the social and economic effects of the transmission facilities and the effect of the transmission facilities on the environment in accordance with Section 17 of the Alberta Utilities Commission Act. 2.2 Hanna region transmission development needs identification document approvals 8. In August 2009, the AESO filed a NID application 4 for reinforcements to the transmission system in the Hanna region (Hanna NID). The AESO described the Hanna region as encompassing the southeast portion of the Alberta central planning region, including the Hanna, Wainwright, Alliance/Battle River, Provost and Sheerness AESO planning areas. The AESO stated that the need for transmission reinforcement was driven by the Hanna region s load forecast, which was estimated to be 970 megawatts by 2017, but also by the need to connect the wind-powered generation forecast for the region, estimated to be 700 megawatts by The AUC held a public hearing on the original Hanna NID application in February The Hanna NID was approved in April 2010 in Decision and the AESO was granted NID Approval No. U Following a number of amendments to the NID filed by the AESO in the fall of 2010, 7 Decision approved the amendments and NID Approval No. U , 9 reflecting these last amendments, was granted in June Application No : Hanna Region Transmission System Development Needs Identification Document, Alberta Electric Systems Operator, August 14, Decision : Alberta Electric System Operator, Needs Identification Document Application Hanna Region Transmission System Development, Application No , Proceeding ID No. 278, April 29, Needs Identification Document Approval No. U , Application No , Proceeding ID No. 278, April 29, The AESO also filed Application No to amend the Hanna NID which was approved in Decision and was granted Hanna NID Approval No. U Decision : Alberta Electric System Operator Amendments to Southern Alberta Transmission System, Reinforcement and Hanna Region Transmission System Development Needs Identification Document Approvals, Applications No and No , Proceeding ID No. 748, March 15, Needs Identification Document Approval No. U , Application No , Proceeding ID No. 748, June 7, AUC Decision (May 8, 2012)

11 2.3 Currant Lake and Armitage needs identification document approvals 10. In February 2011, the AESO filed a NID application 10 (Currant Lake NID) for the construction of a new 144/6.9-kilovolt (kv) substation, designated as Currant Lake 896S (Currant Lake substation), the connection of Currant Lake substation to the Alberta Interconnected Electric System via a tap to 144-kV transmission line 7L110, and for the construction of approximately nine kilometres of 144-kV transmission line near Monitor, Alberta. 11. The AESO also filed an application 11 for the construction of a new 144/6.9-kV substation near Oyen, Alberta, designated as Armitage 949S (Armitage substation), the connection of Armitage substation to the Alberta Interconnected Electric System via a connection to proposed Lanfine 959S substation (Lanfine substation), and for approximately 12 kilometres of 144-kV transmission line (Armitage NID). 12. The Currant Lake NID and Armitage NID applications, which are also part of the Hanna region transmission development, were filed by the AESO in response to a request by ATCO, the transmission and distribution facility owner in the area, for system access services to supply two pump stations, owned by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline GP Ltd. (TransCanada Keystone), via a new substation and transmission line at each pump station. 13. On September 12, 2011, in Decision , 12 the Commission approved the applications and the AESO was granted NID Approvals No. U and No. U for the Currant Lake NID and Armitage NID, respectively. 2.4 Overview of the ten facility applications 14. The AESO directed AltaLink and ATCO, the transmission facility owners in the Hanna region, to prepare and submit to the AUC, facility applications consistent with the approvals issued to the AESO for the Hanna region project. The following provides descriptions of the facilities proposed in each application commencing with the application which proposes facilities in the most northerly area of the project. The complete details of each application can be found in Appendix B. Figure 1 below depicts the overall project proposed in the Hanna region. 10 Application No : Currant Lake 896S Substation and Transmission Line Needs Identification Document, Alberta Electric System Operator, February 9, Application No : Armitage 949S Substation and Transmission Line Needs Identification Document, Alberta Electric System Operator, February 9, Decision : Alberta Electric System Operator Currant Lake 896S Substation, Armitage 949S Substation and 144-kV Transmission Line Interconnections Needs Identification Document Applications, Applications No and No , Proceeding ID No. 979, September 12, Needs Identification Document Approval No. U , Application No , Proceeding ID No. 979, September 12, Needs Identification Document Approval No. U , Application No , Proceeding ID No. 979, September 12, AUC Decision (May 8, 2012) 3

12 Hanna Region Transmission Development Figure 1: Overall area map of Hanna region project R.20 R.18 R.14 R.16 R R.6 R.8 HARDISTY R.2W.4M. R.4 53 BAT BUFFALO LAKE 13 TLE HANSMAN LAKE 650S SUBSTATION RIVER STETTLER T.40 PROVOST 12 T.36 CORONATION GOUGH LAKE CONSORT SULLIVAN LAKE MONITOR 774S SUBSTATION 12 LOYALIST 903S SUBSTATION 56 T.34 GRASSY ISLAND LAKE PROPOSED CURRANT LAKE 896S SUBSTATION DOWLING LAKE 41 HANNA 9 MICHICHI CREEK 802S SUBSTATION SOUNDING LAKE PROPOSED PEMUKAN 932S SUBSTATION T CASTOR T.30 PROPOSED COYOTE LAKE 963S SUBSTATION DRUMHELLER 9 ANDERSON 801S SUBSTATION EXCEL 910S SUBSTATION T.28 OYEN 767S SUBSTATION PROPOSED ARMITAGE 949S SUBSTATION OYEN T.26 D RE PROPOSED OAKLAND 946S SUBSTATION PROPOSED LANFINE 959S SUBSTATION ER DE 36 ER R IV PREFERRED 240-kV TRANSMISSION LINE ROUTE ALTERNATE 240-kV TRANSMISSION LINE ROUTE PREFERRED 144-kV TRANSMISSION LINE ROUTE ALTERNATE 144-kV TRANSMISSION LINE ROUTE N.T.S. Hansman Lake to Pemukan: AltaLink portion 15. AltaLink filed a facility application15 on December 6, 2010 for approval to construct and operate approximately 21 kilometres of double-circuit 240-kV transmission line, with one side strung, designated as 966L from the existing Hansman Lake 650S substation (Hansman Lake substation) to the boundary between AltaLink s and ATCO s service territory (AltaLink portion of Hansman Lake to Pemukan line) where the 966L transmission line will connect to ATCO s portion of the transmission line, named 9L966, which goes to the proposed Pemukan 932S substation (Pemukan substation). The application also requested approval for alterations to Hansman Lake substation as well as temporary construction workspaces outside of and in addition to the right-of-way requested for transmission line 966L. AltaLink proposed four different route alignments for the AltaLink portion of the Hansman Lake to Pemukan line, designated as a preferred route and three alternative routes. On October 7, 2011, AltaLink filed a 15 Application No : Hanna Region Transmission Development: Hansman Lake project, AltaLink Management Ltd., December 6, AUC Decision (May 8, 2012)

13 minor route amendment 16 to the preferred route of the AltaLink portion of the Hansman Lake to Pemukan line. The Commission issued two rounds of information requests 17 to clarify details of the application, to which AltaLink provided responses. 18 On February 22, 2012, AltaLink filed a letter 19 to correct an error in a land location for a temporary construction workspace. The proposed preferred route and alternative routes are depicted on the map in Appendix C. The facilities proposed in this application will be referred to as the AltaLink portion of the Hansman Lake to Pemukan project Hansman Lake to Pemukan: ATCO portion 16. ATCO filed a facility application 20 on January 24, 2011, for approval to construct and operate a new substation designated as Pemukan substation and approximately 31 kilometres of new double-circuit 240-kV transmission line, with one side strung, designated as 9L966, from the proposed Pemukan substation northward to the boundary between ATCO and AltaLink s service territories to connect with AltaLink s portion of transmission line 966L (ATCO portion of the Hansman Lake to Pemukan line). This application also requests approval to construct and operate approximately 1.5 kilometres of new double-circuit 144-kV transmission line, with both sides strung and one side energized designated as 7L127, and the idle circuit designated as 7L141, from the proposed Pemukan substation to existing Monitor 774S substation (Monitor substation), to re-terminate the existing 144-kV transmission line 7L79 from Monitor substation to proposed Pemukan substation and to salvage a portion of the 144-kV line between 7L79 and Monitor substation. The Commission issued two rounds of information requests 21 to clarify details of the application, to which ATCO provided responses. 22 On August 8, 2011, ATCO filed an amendment 23 to this application to include temporary workspace areas and permanent access trails in the approval for the proposed transmission facilities. On November 9, 2011, ATCO filed another amendment 24 to the application for a minor route realignment to the ATCO portion of the Hansman Lake to Pemukan line. ATCO proposed a preferred route for the ATCO portion of the Hansman Lake to Pemukan line, as well as an alternative route. The proposed preferred and alternative routes, as amended, are depicted on the map in Appendix D. The facilities proposed in this application will be referred to as the ATCO portion of the Hansman Lake to Pemukan project Pemukan to Lanfine 17. ATCO filed a facility application 25 on March 3, 2011, for approval to construct and operate approximately 76 kilometres of new double-circuit 240-kV transmission line, with one side strung, designated as 9L46 from the proposed Lanfine 959S substation (Lanfine substation) to proposed Pemukan substation (Pemukan to Lanfine line). The Commission issued information requests 26 to clarify details of the application, to which ATCO provided responses. 27 On 16 Exhibit 684 Amended Application No , October 7, Exhibit 540, June 16, 2011 and Exhibit 610, September 9, Exhibit 607, August 29, 2011 and Exhibit 657, September 21, Exhibit 775, Application No HRTD Hansman Lake Amendment to Application, February 22, Application No : Pemukan to Hansman Lake Transmission Project, ATCO Electric Ltd., January 24, Exhibit 541, June 16, 2011 and Exhibit 613, September 9, Exhibit 579, July 16, 2011 and Exhibit 652, September 21, Exhibit ATCO Amendment to Application No , August 8, Exhibit ATCO Amendment to Application No , November 9, Application No : Lanfine to Pemukan Transmission Project, ATCO Electric Ltd., March 3, Exhibit 565, June 30, 2011 and Exhibit 615, September 9, Exhibit 583, July 19, 2011 and Exhibit 653, September 21, AUC Decision (May 8, 2012) 5

14 August 8, 2011, ATCO filed an amendment 28 to the application to include temporary workspace areas and permanent access trails in the approval for the proposed transmission facilities. ATCO proposed a preferred route for the Pemukan to Lanfine line, as well as four alternative routes referred to in the application as variations A, B, C and D. The proposed preferred route and four alternative routes are depicted on the map in Appendix E. The facilities proposed in this application will be referred to as the Pemukan to Lanfine project Currant Lake 18. ATCO filed a facility application 29 on March 25, 2011, for approval to construct and operate a new substation designated as Currant Lake substation and approximately 12 kilometres of new 144-kV transmission line designated as 7LA110 from existing 144-kV transmission line 7L110 to proposed Currant Lake substation (Currant Lake line). As well for the alteration of existing 144-kV transmission line 7L110 to provide a tap off point for proposed Currant Lake line. ATCO proposed a preferred route for the Currant Lake line, as well as an alternative route. The Commission issued two rounds of information requests 30 to clarify details of the application, to which ATCO provided responses. 31 The proposed preferred and alternative routes are depicted on the map in Appendix F. The facilities proposed in this application will be referred to as the Currant Lake project Lanfine to Oakland 19. ATCO filed a facility application 32 on December 21, 2010, for approval to construct and operate a new substation designated as Lanfine substation and approximately 93 kilometres of new double-circuit 240-kV transmission line, with one side strung, designated as 9L24, from proposed Oakland substation to proposed Lanfine substation (Lanfine to Oakland line). On August 8, 2011, ATCO filed an amendment 33 to the application to include temporary workspace areas and permanent access trails in the approval for the proposed transmission facilities. The Commission issued two rounds of information requests 34 to clarify details of the application to which ATCO provided responses. 35 On November 10, 2011, ATCO filed another amendment 36 to the application for a minor route realignment with respect to the Lanfine to Oakland line. ATCO proposed a preferred route for the Lanfine to Oakland line, as well as an alternative route segment. The proposed preferred route and alternative route segment are depicted on the map in Appendix G. The facilities proposed in this application will be referred to as the Lanfine to Oakland project Oyen area interconnection 20. ATCO filed a facility application 37 on March 21, 2011, for approval to construct and operate approximately four kilometres of new 144-kV transmission line designated as 7L116 from proposed Lanfine substation to existing Excel 910S substation (Excel substation) 28 Exhibit ATCO Amendment to Application No , August 8, Application No : Transmission project to Currant Lake substation, ATCO Electric Ltd., March 25, Exhibit 575, July 15, 2011 and Exhibit 618, September 9, Exhibit 592, July 27, 2011and Exhibit 645, September 21, Application No : Oakland to Lanfine Transmission Project, ATCO Electric Ltd., December 21, Exhibit ATCO Amendment to Application No , August 8, Exhibit 568, July 8, 2011 and Exhibit 612, September 9, Exhibit 587, July 25, 2011and Exhibit 660, September 22, Exhibit ATCO Amendment to Application No , November 10, Application No : Oyen Area Facilities Interconnection, ATCO Electric Ltd., March 21, AUC Decision (May 8, 2012)

15 (Lanfine to Excel line) and approximately 10 kilometres of new double-circuit 144-kV transmission line, both sides strung with one side energized, designated as 7L132 (and the idle circuit designated as 7L151) from proposed Lanfine substation to existing Oyen 767S substation (Oyen substation) (Lanfine to Oyen line). The Commission issued two rounds of information requests 38 to clarify details of the application to which ATCO provided responses. 39 The proposed routes are depicted on the map in Appendix H. The facilities proposed in this application will be referred to as the Oyen area interconnection project Lanfine to Armitage 21. ATCO filed a facility application 40 on March 9, 2011, for approval to construct and operate a new substation designated as Armitage substation and approximately 10 kilometres of new 144-kV transmission line designated as 7L150 from proposed Lanfine substation to proposed Armitage substation (Lanfine to Armitage line). The application also requests approval to alter existing 72-kV transmission line 6L09 to convert it to a double-circuit transmission line for three kilometres by stringing this length on the new structures proposed for the 144-kV Lanfine to Armitage line. The Commission issued two rounds of information requests 41 to clarify details of the application to which ATCO provided responses. 42 The proposed route is depicted on the map in Appendix I. The facilities proposed in this application will be referred to as the Lanfine to Armitage project Oakland to Coyote Lake 22. ATCO filed a facility application 43 on February 7, 2011, for approval to construct and operate a new substation designated as Coyote Lake 963S (Coyote Lake substation) and approximately 35 kilometres of new double-circuit 240-kV transmission line, with one side strung, designated as 9L29 from proposed Oakland 946S substation (Oakland substation) to proposed Coyote Lake substation (Oakland to Coyote Lake line). On August 8, 2011, ATCO filed an amendment 44 to the application to include temporary workspace areas and permanent access trails in the approval for the proposed transmission facilities as well as a minor route realignment to the Oakland to Coyote Lake line. The Commission issued two rounds of information requests 45 to clarify details of the application, to which ATCO provided responses. 46 ATCO proposed a preferred route for the Oakland to Coyote Lake line, as well as an alternative route. The proposed preferred and alternative routes are depicted on the map in Appendix J. The facilities proposed in this application will be referred to as the Oakland to Coyote Lake project Oakland to Anderson 23. ATCO filed a facility application 47 on November 25, 2010, for approval to construct and operate a new substation designated as Oakland substation and approximately nine kilometres of 38 Exhibit 582, July 18, 2011 and Exhibit 617, September 9, Exhibit 590, July 27, 2011 and Exhibit 647, September 21, Application No : Lanfine 959S substation to Armitage 949S substation, ATCO Electric Ltd., March 9, Exhibit 574, July 15, 2011 and Exhibit 616, September 9, Exhibit 593, July 27, 2011and Exhibit 646, September 21, Application No : Oakland to Coyote Lake Transmission Project and related matters, ATCO Electric Ltd., February 7, Exhibit ATCO Amendment to Application No , August 8, Exhibit 564, June 30, 2011 and Exhibit 614, September 9, Exhibit 580, July 16, 2011 and Exhibit 659, September 22, Application No : Anderson to Oakland Transmission Project, ATCO Electric Ltd., November 25, AUC Decision (May 8, 2012) 7

16 new double-circuit 240-kV transmission line designated as 9L70/9L97 from existing Anderson 801S substation (Anderson substation) to proposed Oakland substation. The Commission issued two rounds of information requests 48 to clarify details of the application to which ATCO provided responses. 49 The proposed route is depicted on the map in Appendix K. The facilities proposed in this application will be referred to as the Oakland to Anderson project Coyote Lake to Michichi Creek 24. ATCO filed a facility application 50 on April 8, 2011, for approval to construct and operate approximately 45 kilometres of new 144-kV transmission line designated as 7L128 from proposed Coyote Lake substation to existing Michichi Creek 802S substation (Michichi Creek substation), with a portion of the transmission line double-circuited with existing 144-kV transmission line 7L171 (Coyote Lake to Michichi Creek line) and for the re-termination of existing 144-kV transmission line 7L25 in a new bay in Michichi Creek substation. On August 10, 2011, ATCO filed an amendment 51 to the application to include temporary workspace areas and permanent access trails in the approval for the proposed transmission facilities. The Commission issued two rounds of information requests 52 to clarify details of the application, to which ATCO provided responses. 53 On November 10, 2011, ATCO filed another amendment 54 to the application for a minor route realignment to the Coyote Lake to Michichi Creek line. ATCO proposed a preferred route for the Coyote Lake to Michichi Creek line, as well as an alternative route. The proposed preferred and alternative routes are depicted on the map in Appendix L. The facilities proposed in this application will be referred to as the Coyote Lake to Michichi Creek project. 25. The Commission published notice for all ten facility applications on May 6, A number of amendments to multiple applications were filed. The last application amendments were received on November 10, 2011, and as such, the Commission considers the facility applications complete as of this date. 26. On February 7, 2012, subsequent to the end of the hearing, ATCO submitted a letter to the AUC advising that the construction schedule for the Currant Lake and Armitage projects was revised at the request of a customer so that the projects were not required to be in-service until after December ATCO stated that it would advise the Commission when arrangements had been finalized. 55 On February 22, 2012, ATCO submitted another letter 56 to the AUC advising that, subsequent to its previous letter its construction schedule required the Currant Lake and Lanfine to Armitage projects to be in-service by June Accordingly, ATCO requested that the Commission stipulate the completion date for the Currant Lake and Lanfine to Armitage projects to accommodate this in-service date. The information change in planned construction dates is material and, therefore, the close of record for this proceeding is February 22, Exhibit 563, June 27, 2011 and Exhibit 611, September 9, Exhibit 578, July 16, 2011and Exhibit 651, September 21, Application No : Coyote Lake to Michichi Creek Transmission Project, ATCO Electric Ltd., April 8, Exhibit ATCO Amendment to Application No , August 10, Exhibit 581, July 18, 2011 and Exhibit 619, September 9, Exhibit 591, July 27, 2011and Exhibit 650, September 21, Exhibit ATCO Amendment to Application No , November 10, Exhibit ATCO letter to the AUC, February 7, Exhibit 776 ATCO letter to the AUC, February 22, AUC Decision (May 8, 2012)

17 2.5 Interventions 27. The Commission received 33 submissions from individuals and landowner groups in response to the notice of applications, issued on May 6, Further, the Commission received one statement of concern prior to the issuance of the notice of applications. 28. On July 8, 2011, the Commission issued its ruling on standing 57 in Proceeding ID No The Commission granted standing to those persons who had demonstrated that they had rights that may be directly and adversely affected by the Commission s decision with respect to the facility applications. Pursuant to Section 9(2) of the Alberta Utilities Act, the Commission held a hearing to consider the concerns of the registered parties with standing, with respect to the subject facility applications. 2.6 Notice of hearing 29. The Commission issued a notice of hearing 58 on August 3, 2011, which advised that a hearing of the applications in Proceeding ID No. 979 would be held in Oyen, Alberta commencing on November 14, The notice was distributed by: Mail or directly to registered parties. Mail to registered land title holders within 800 metres of the proposed transmission facilities rights-of-way for all route alternatives. Publication in eight local newspapers in the Hanna region. Publication on the AUC website. 30. In response to a motion filed by the Hansman Lake Group with respect to the AltaLink application for the Hansman Lake to Pemukan project, the Commission issued a ruling 59 on September 13, 2011, to change the hearing location from Oyen, Alberta to a location which was closer to the places of residence of the members of the Hansman Lake Group. The Commission approved the request for a change of venue with respect to AltaLink s application for the AltaLink portion of the Hansman Lake to Pemukan project to Wainwright, Alberta. In order to maintain a logical flow of evidence, the Commission decided to also hear ATCO s application for its portion of the Hansman Lake to Pemukan project, in Wainwright. 31. On September 27, 2011, the Commission issued a revised notice of hearing and application amendments 60 advising interested persons that ATCO had filed amendments to several of the facility applications to include temporary workspace areas and permanent access trails in the approvals for the proposed transmission facilities. The notice also advised that the hearing of AltaLink s Application No and ATCO s Application No , both pertaining to the Hansman Lake to Pemukan projects, would be held in Wainwright, Alberta starting on November 14, 2011, and that the hearing of all other applications in Proceeding ID No. 979 would be held in Oyen, Alberta commencing on November 21, Exhibit AUC letter of standing for facility applications, July 8, Exhibit Notice of hearing, Hanna Region Transmission Development, Proceeding ID No. 979, August 3, Exhibit 621 AUC ruling on motion, September 13, Exhibit Revised Notice of Hearing and Application Amendments, Hanna Region Transmission Development, Proceeding ID No. 979, September 27, AUC Decision (May 8, 2012) 9

18 2.7 Hearing 32. The hearing commenced on November 14, 2011, at the Wainwright Communiplex in Wainwright, Alberta before a Commission panel comprised of Commission Member and Panel Chair Anne Michaud, Commission Member Neil Jamieson and acting Commission Member Clifford Goerz. The hearing continued the following week in Oyen, Alberta at the Oyen Legion commencing on November 21, During the course of the hearing, several undertakings were given by various parties. The last answer to an undertaking was filed by ATCO on December 7, One undertaking given by Jim Ness, on behalf of the Canadian Association of Energy and Pipelines Associations (CAEPLA), was not fulfilled after the last hearing day or at any time after that, despite written requests for same by the Commission. 61 An update to a previously answered undertaking was filed by ATCO on February 6, A number of parties chose to participate by filing written submissions for consideration by the Commission and, accordingly, did not appear in person at the hearing. A list of all registered parties in Proceeding ID No. 979 is provided in Appendix M. The content of these written submissions was considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. 35. A number of landowners submitted similar letters that contained a list of non-site-specific concerns. Some of these letters did not contain the land location that was potentially affected, or identify for which application the person had concerns. As such, the letters are addressed here rather than in connection to a specific application. In its rebuttal evidence, 63 ATCO supplied a very thorough, methodical and informative response to all the points raised in the letters. 36. Several parties chose to attend the hearing and give statements or testimony at the public hearings in Wainwright and Oyen. A complete list of all hearing participants is attached to this decision in Appendix N; however, to assist the readers of this decision, the Commission has included the following brief introduction to the landowners and residents who participated orally in the public hearings. 37. The Hansman Lake Group is comprised of six families who are landowners in the Provost area, near the preferred route proposed by AltaLink for its portion of the Hansman Lake to Pemukan project. Three members of the Hansman Lake Group, Mr. Lee Boisvert, Mr. Bryon Mailer and Mr. Tim McNalley, appeared on its panel and gave statements at the hearing in Wainwright. The members of the Hansman Lake Group and their respective land locations are listed in Table Exhibit AUC letter to CAEPLA requesting list of members undertaking at hearing, December 5, Exhibit 773 ATCO response to Undertaking 008, February 6, Exhibit Rebuttal Evidence, November 1, AUC Decision (May 8, 2012)

19 Table 1. Name(s) Hansman Lake Group members Land location Boisvert, Lee and Janine Cook, Amanda and Eldon Laye, Reany and Lana Fossen SE W4M NE W4M NW W4 NW W4 SW W4M S ½ W4M Mailer, Bryon and Denise S ½ W4M W4M N ½ 38-5-W4M SE W4M Masson, Joseph, Enid and Murray SW W4M NE W4M McNalley, Tim NW W4M 38. Mr. Tim Ruth gave a statement at the Wainwright hearing. He is the registered landowner of SE W4M and is the lease holder of sections W4M and W4M. His mother-in-law, Ms. Lila Benner, whom he also represented, is the registered owner of section W4M. 39. There are a number of people with land interests in the Hanna region project area who stated in their submissions that they are represented by CAEPLA. Prior to the start of the hearing, the Commission also requested that CAEPLA confirm its members, their land locations and the issues CAEPLA would be presenting on their behalf. 64 No submission was received in response to the Commission s letter. 40. Three members of CAEPLA, Mr. Jim Ness, Mr. Graham Caskey and Mr. Willy Doolaege, appeared on a panel and gave statements at the hearing in Oyen. Four additional members of CAEPLA, Mr. Darryl Bowles, Ms. Ina Hains, Mr. Roger Mackenzie and Mr. Ralph Thornton, presented brief oral statements on their own behalf in Oyen. The CAEPLA panel raised concerns with respect to the potential impacts of the transmission lines proposed in the Hanna region project, specifically on the ATCO portion of the Hansman Lake to Pemukan project, the Pemukan to Lanfine line and the Lanfine to Oakland line. The landowners who indicated in their written submissions to the Commission that they were represented by CAEPLA are listed in Table 2. However, at the hearing from Mr. Ness gave an undertaking 65 in his 64 Exhibit 677 AUC letter to CAEPLA (Jim Ness), October 4, Transcript, Volume 4, pages 798 to 799. AUC Decision (May 8, 2012) 11

20 capacity as the spokesman for CAEPLA, that CAEPLA would confirm the identity and land locations of all members whom it represented in this proceeding. Despite a written request from the Commission after the hearing, 66 no response was ever received from CAEPLA. The Commission took this into account in weighing the credibility of CAEPLA. Because of CAEPLA s disregard of the Commission s request for this information, the Commission could not ascertain, other than for those members who appeared and confirmed it at the hearing, which members were ultimately represented by CAEPLA. This is very unfortunate and disappointing for the many individuals and families who were under the impression that their interests were represented in this proceeding before the Commission. These people had, in fact, specifically requested that the Commission or the applicants not contact them directly with regard to this matter on the assumption that CAEPLA was their representative. Table 2. Name(s) Registered parties who claimed to be CAEPLA members Berg, Louis Karl and Edna Dianne Blair, Donald and Colleen Bowles, Darryl Caskey, Graham and Marlene Doolaege, Willy and Anastasia Hadwin Cattle Co. Ltd. Hadwin, Douglas Hadwin, Joan Hadwin, John Hadwin, Rick Hains, Leonard and Ina Heatherington, Glen and Cheri Mackenzie, Murdo Mackenzie, Roger and Shelly Spicer Masson, Joseph and Enid Ness, Jim Thornton, Ralph Wagstaff, Barry 66 Exhibit 771 AUC letter to CAEPLA requesting list of members, December 5, AUC Decision (May 8, 2012)

21 41. Mr. Darcy Berg, the registered landowner of NE W4M, provided an oral statement in Oyen. His concerns related to the potential impacts of the preferred route of the Pemukan to Lanfine line primarily on the property of his parents, Louis Karl and Edna Dianne Berg, in the south half of section W4M. 42. Mr. Brian Ference, the registered landowner of SE W4M, also provided an oral statement in Oyen. 43. Mr. Bruce Beasley, the registered owner of sections 8, 9, 10 and 12 of Township 28, Range 8, west of the Fourth Meridian, appeared in Oyen with his son, John Beasley, and daughter-in-law, Kelsey Beasley, on behalf of the Beasley family, Integrity Ranch Ltd. and Cowtech Inc. 44. The Commission has reviewed the evidence, arguments and replies provided by all registered parties, including the written statements of those individuals who chose to participate by only submitting a written statement of their concerns. Any references to specific parts of the record are intended to assist the reader in understanding the Commission s decision, but should not be taken as an indication that the Commission did not consider the entire record as it relates to any issue. 3 The public interest 45. When considering an application to construct or operate a transmission facility, the Commission is required by Section 17 of the Alberta Utilities Commission Act to consider whether the proposed project is in the public interest, having regard to its social and economic effects and the effects of the project on the environment. Regarding the interpretation of the term public interest, the Commission is mindful of Decision , 67 which states: The Commission recognizes that there is no universal definition of what comprises the public interest and that its meaning cannot be derived from strictly objective measures. The Commission acknowledges that the ultimate determination of whether a particular project is in the public interest will largely be dictated by the circumstances of each transmission facility application. In the Commission s view, assessment of the public interest requires it to balance the benefits associated with upgrades to the transmission system with the associated impacts, having regard to the legislative framework for transmission development in Alberta. This exercise necessarily requires the Commission to weigh impacts that will be experienced on a provincial basis, such as improved system performance, reliability, and access with specific routing impacts upon those individuals or families that reside or own land along a proposed transmission route as well as other users of the land that may be affected. This approach is consistent with the EUB s historical position that the public interest standard will generally be met by an activity that benefits the segment of the public to which the legislation is aimed, while at the same time minimizing, or mitigating to an acceptable degree, the potential adverse impacts on more discrete parts of the community. When assessing whether AltaLink s proposed route is in the public interest, the Commission must weigh the benefits described above with the site specific impacts that 67 Decision : AltaLink Management Ltd. Transmission Line from Pincher Creek to Lethbridge, Application No , Proceeding ID No. 19, March 10, AUC Decision (May 8, 2012) 13

22 will be experienced by landowners and residents along the proposed route as well as others that may be impacted. The Commission understands that these impacts are real and may be significant. Transmission towers are large structures that may obscure scenery, impact agricultural operations, and may have an influence on land use and development plans. The Commission expects transmission facility owners to take all reasonable steps to avoid such impacts but acknowledges that despite the use of sound routing and planning practices such impacts are sometimes truly unavoidable given the nature of transmission lines. Where such impacts are truly unavoidable, the Commission expects that the Applicant would explore all reasonable steps to mitigate those impacts As noted above in paragraph 9, the Commission had approved the original Hanna NID on April 29, The upgrades to the transmission system and related facilities being considered in this proceeding address part of the need to alleviate the constraint in the transmission system in the Hanna region. Improvements in efficiency are intended to result in a transmission system for all of Alberta that is safe, reliable and robust, and which provides for non-discriminatory system access, facilitating an openly competitive market Decision overview 47. Having considered all of the evidence before it, the Commission finds that the proposed transmission lines, substations and related facilities proposed in ATCO s nine facility applications and AltaLink s facility application fulfill components of the need identified in the Hanna NID and other related NIDs. 48. The Commission has approved all of ATCO s facility applications and AltaLink s facility application, for the construction of, and alterations to, the following transmission facilities: New facilities Oakland 946S substation (NW W4M). Pemukan 932S substation (SW W4M). Lanfine 959S substation (SW W4M). Coyote Lake 963S substation (NE W4M). Armitage 949S substation (NE W4M). Currant Lake 896S substation (SE W4M). Double-circuit 240-kV transmission line 9L70/9L97 from Oakland 946S substation to Anderson 801S substation along the preferred route as further described in this decision. 68 Decision , pages 6 to 7. The reference in this quote to the EUB is to the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (predecessor to the AUC). 69 Electric Utilities Act Transmission Regulation, Section AUC Decision (May 8, 2012)